Never a peep

[camgarsky4]

I know Lizzie apologists view what I am about to type as meaningless and retro-fitting history, but I want to share anyway.

Imagine if our father and his wife were brutally massacred, essentially and literally, while we were just 'around the corner' and we went unscathed. Then we were accused, arrested, held in jail for almost a year, experienced a trial and then were found "not guilty". Then we decided we would remain in the town where all this happened, all the while aware that most neighbors considered us guilty of the crime.

Presumably Lizzie was very aware that she could not be retried for these crimes.

At some point in the ensuing years, there is not a 'snowballs chance in h- - -' that I would not provide a full explanation to the media and law enforcement about what I did know about the crimes. I would publicly demand that law enforcement continue to pursue the truth and the guilty. I would hire a full-time team of detectives to investigate the crimes until I ran out of money, my murdered father's money. I would be obsessed to clear my name and reputation to any doubters and mostly to my friends and family. I would also be equally obsessed to hunt down the bastards who slaughtered my dad.

We are unaware of any such efforts instigated by Lizzie or her sister (which is equally interesting and perhaps telling).

After she was found not guilty, nary an official peep about the crimes slipped out of Lizzie's mouth for the duration of her life.

[Lorcan]

It's something to ponder. There would be a lot of danger in Lizzie talking to the press. There would be questions that would be very uncomfortable, like:

1. Did you hear a scraping sound or a groan and go in to investigate?

2. Did you find the screen door wide open?

3. If so, why did you take the time to check the stove to see how warm the irons were, decide to set your hat down, and then decide to go upstairs rather than rebuilding the kitchen fire?

4. Why did you decide to buy pink and blue again in July when you just had pink and blue dresses made in May?

5. Why did you stay alone in the house with your back turned to a potential killer?

6. What did you do in the basement the second time after Alice was taking a bath?

7. Which screen was it that you were going to repair and did you do it? Did Bridget notice the damaged screen while washing the windows?

8. Do you think you could eat 4 pears in 30 minutes, right now, in front of me? I'll join you in the attempt.

9. How is it that you are not aware of DR Smith's drugstore 2/10ths of a mile from your house at a major intersection of Main Street where you often shop?

10. Did you pick up pills at a doctor's office or a drug store as a favor to the Pool's when you were shopping in New Bedford?

11. Why wasn't the Bedford Cord using up a peg in the clothes press a problem for 3 months and only became a problem the morning after you were told you were a suspect?

12. Why did Emma ask you what you were doing with that dress when she herself suggested you burn it and why did you reply you were burning it because it had paint on it?

13. Who told you about the 4th street real estate transaction and did they know you didn't know?

14. What did you write in the letter to your friend that you planned to stay with in Marion that your friend went to a lawyer about and then decided to destroy the letter?

15. Did you buy or otherwise obtain a hatchet as a gift/joke to use at Marion because the hatchet there was too dull to chop firewood?

16. What did you mean by basting a piece of tape? Which dress and why did you do it and if you went down to the basement, upstairs to your bedroom and immediately back down afterwards, that had to be well before Andrew left the house, right? If not, do you still stay Andrew left close to 10AM rather than 9AM? Since you went downstairs around 8:45 or later, how did you confuse being around Andrew for 15 minutes with 75 minutes that morning?

I probably can come up with a few more, but those are off the top of my head.

So, I think if guilty, she did not want to expose herself to questioning. I also think Emma would be in danger if it were shown she lied under oath and that she provided false physical evidence in a double-murder case.

Why Lizzie stayed in Fall River after it became clear she was not going to be accepted into The Hill or even have the freedom of a normal anonymous non-adversarial public life, I think, gives us a bit of a picture of her personality.

[camgarsky4]

I wasn't suggesting that she should have agreed to a full-fledged deposition and the questioner be someone out of her control. She had the money and choice to control the message and how it was delivered. She had years to construct a plausible storyline. She chose not to.

She and Emma also seemingly chose not to publicly pursue the 'real' killers. Hard to believe they could have conducted a lengthy and exhaustive private investigation without word leaking out. Investigators would have had to talk to the participants.

Why would Emma be exposed to anything? The narrative would come from Lizzie and I presume Lizzie wouldn't declare that Emma had lied under oath.

I very much agree that Lizzie's decision to remain in Fall River for the duration of her life says a lot about her mental makeup, in particular (and in my opinion), her narcissistic personality disorder.

[Lorcan]

Emma turned over packages of blue and pink dress material. If that material was purchased after the police asked for it, and Emma got caught arranging that purchase, she could face 4 separate felony charges: accessory after the fact, perjury, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice.

I think Emma faced at least a perjury felony for her testimony about the dress burning being her idea, so potentially 5 felonies, if she both lied about the dress and lied about the dress material from New Bedford.

[camgarsky4]

I'm just not tracking on how and why Emma's testimony would be reexplored, challenged and found perjurious.

If Lizzie issued a public statement that she was truly innocent and was out in the barn and/or must have been in the cellar when Abby was killed or whatever fable she spewed, how would Emma's testimony get pulled into the fray?

By the way, if Lizzie was innocent, neither she nor Emma were likely lying. So absolutely no reason to not be her own, best advocate post-acquittal.

[Lorcan]

If I have something wrong here, let me know. It's not my theory, it's something from one of the book authors or podcasters (I think either Pittman or Dziedzic) but I can't remember where I first heard the idea.

Let's say that dress material really wasn't in the house. Emma checked everywhere. The police keep asking about it. Emma panics and asks Jennings what to do. Jennings says it would be dangerous for Lizzie to recant her statement, even if she says she innocently misremembered the situation, but that it would sure be helpful if Emma would keep looking for it. Tone of voice would have been significant in that situation.

Emma goes to see Lizzie in jail and tells her she is at her wits end with the police asking about the dress material and she asked Jennings what to do.

It's at that point where I think the "Emma, you have given me away" statement was overheard, if we believe that actually happened.

The danger is if Emma asked someone to buy the dress material for her and somehow that deal goes south and it comes out that Emma paid someone to buy the dress material to match Lizzie's description. If that happened, and I think there is a fairly good chance it did, when Emma presents that as the material Lizzie bought in New Bedford, that is 4 separate felonies, if the DA wants to prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law.

[camgarsky4]

You think there is a 'fairly good chance' that Emma paid someone to purchase dress material similar to what Lizzie said she purchased back in July? Is that a gut feel or do you have something more?

But back to my make-believe scenario of Lizzie defending her legacy post-acquittal......how would any of this dress material drama come up? The police wouldn't know any more then than they did at the time of the trial.

[Lorcan]

Yes, for these reasons:

1. Lizzie specifically said it was in a trunk on the 3rd floor, yet Emma couldn't find it even after being asked by the police more than once.

2. I don't believe a stylish woman would buy the same colors for dresses 2 months apart - the pink bothers me more than the blue, since Lizzie liked blue so much.

3. Lizzie mentioned the street where her friend worked but didn't specify the name of the shop. That street callout and the blue and pink combine to give me a gut feeling she made up the answer on the fly to account for the 90 minutes when I think she went to two drug stores.

4. Emma visited Lizzie often - why did it take so long to find out where the dress material was if it was really in the house.

5. I think it is more likely Emma would ask someone to buy it rather than risk buying it herself. I can think of many different ways that material could have been purchased, but all of it is simply spy novel speculation.

Let's say Emma wrote a letter to a very trusted cousin to obtain the dress material and then for whatever reason that person talked. Let's say a clerk noticed Emma in a wig buy those 2 colors and then put 2 and 2 together after reading about those exact 2 dress material options in the newspaper.

https://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/2 ... w-bedford/

Lizzie Goes Shopping in New Bedford
July 23, 2020
Lizzie and Emma had left Fall River on a hot summer’s vacation to visit friends in New Bedford and Fairhaven on July 21st. The sisters split up in New Bedford as Emma went across the bridge to Fairhaven to stay for an extended visit with Helen Brownell and her widowed mother on Green Street. Lizzie stayed in New Bedford and called upon Mrs. Poole and her invalid daughter, Carrie Poole. Lizzie had been close chums with Carrie’s sister, Augusta- now Mrs. Cyrus Tripp. The Pooles lived in a rooming house at 20 Madison Street in the city, not too far from the commercial section.

On July 23rd, Lizzie went on a short shopping expedition alone to the shops not far from the boarding house on Madison Street. There she purchased some cheap day dress fabric and pattern to be made up by her seamstress back in Fall River. She did not shop very long, then returned to the Pooles.

In her inquest statement, Lizzie is asked about the last time she was away from home. Interestingly, she overestimates how long ago her trip to the Pooles was:

Q. When was the last time when you have been away for more than a night or two before this affair?

A. I don’t think I have been away to stay more than a night or two since I came from abroad, except about three or four weeks ago I was in New Bedford for three or four days.

Q. Where at New Bedford?

A. At 20 Madison Street

Lizzie was asked about the dress goods and pattern she bought on the 23rd.

“Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don’t know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson’s book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.”

The police made a bad show of things when they revealed on the stand that there was confusion about who searched the attic trunk, when, etc. and not recalling finding a dress pattern and cloth goods. In other words, it was a very unprofessional evidence-gathering effort which cast an unflattering light on the men in blue. It was thought Officer Medley led the first attic search, then Assistant Marshal Fleet. Marshal Hilliard and Officer Desmond were also up in the attic as part of the search which was woefully uncoordinated. The missing articles were finally produced very late in the process. Knowlton was satisfied with his examination of the materials but a lingering doubt continued as to whether or not a substitution could have been made. It was not the first time the police had botched something concerning the search of the Borden house.

Much was made about this dress yard goods and pattern. Did Lizzie somehow have the dress made up, worn it during the double homicides, burn it and then her defense arrange to have duplicate fabric “found” later? A local newspaper speculated on this scenario.

From the Evening Standard, Fall River, Sept. 3, 1892 – Was It Possible For Defense to Have Duplicated the Goods? “The day after the Borden murder City Marshal Hilliard put two New Bedford officers at work in that city with orders to trace Lizzie Borden’s actions during the two weeks previous. They found that she had purchased a dress pattern of cheap material in a dry goods store in that city, and it was to this pattern that reference was made at the trial. Some importance was attached to the matter at the time of the discovery of the purchase. The police failed to find the dress pattern or any dress of it in their search at the Borden house. They made demand on the members of the family to produce the piece of goods or the made-up dress. If they could not do this the police wanted to know what had become of it. The family refused to move in the matter and the police at New Bedford searched the store to get a sample of the goods bought by Lizzie.

The last day of the trial the defense surrendered the piece of dress goods which Lizzie had purchased and it was still intact. The question has arisen in the minds of some people who believe as the prosecution does whether or not it was possible for the friends of the prisoner to have duplicated the dress pattern and surrendered the last purchased instead of the first, and that the first one might have been made-up and used by Lizzie Borden at the time of the murder and afterwards destroyed or put out of the way.”

It is, at the least, a very curious business. Lizzie, on the day of the murders, rested in her room dressed in a pink and white striped wrapper. Coincidence- or something else?

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for posting the testimony and article.

Is the theory that Lizzie intended to wear the painted dress to kill them, burn it, but have a duplicate already sewn so that she could deny burning it? Or is it that she never bought any dress patterns and made that up to explain what she was doing when she went for her outing in New Bedford?

Likely because Jennings Journals wasn't published until after their writings, most writers only have Medley's account of Lizzie's activities while in New Bedford.

Source: Jennings Journals. Page 251-252.
Mrs. Edwin R. Pool (1835-1918)
Entry recorded by Andrew J. Jennings.

Sat morning after breakfast she went down street & when she came home, she brot home this dress pattern & bunch of sweet peas. Know it was Sat because she said bot them because ours are wilted & they will be pretty for Sunday. Sat afternoon we went to Fairhaven & took little boy with me – think when we came home, I got something at Market – She wasn’t out of my sight as walked – told me about getting Frank’s pills.

[Lorcan]

Thanks, I didn't see the Jennings Journals quote before.

I think there is a mystery either way. The more prominent theory is she bought the dress patterns (or dress material) and used it as a covering. Before seeing Mrs. Pools statement I thought it might be more likely that it was just a lie to cover for the 2 pharmacy visits - but if Mrs. Pool isn't lying, then that theory is out.

What we have so far, I think, is:

Mrs. Pool says it was a single dress pattern.

Lizzie says it was two patterns, one pink and white, and one blue, possibly blue and white. I can't tell what Lizzie meant in her testimony.

Emma failed to find them for a significant amount of time even when asked by police more than once.

Lizzie says she picked the same two colors as 2 months previously.

I think the most logical theory is the material would have been a covering to protect the blue bedford cord, and it was disposed of along with the Crowe barn hatchet because Lizzie didn't plan to kill Andrew with a hatchet that morning.

Then the overcoat was used for Andrew's murder and Lizzie didn't want to take a chance and decided to burn the bedford cord.

I think that's the theory's most reasonable version.

Is there any followup or more detail about where Lizzie picked up Frank's pills?

[Lorcan]

Let's flip it and consider innocent explanations and see if that is more reasonable:

1. Lizzie bought two dress patterns of the same two colors as two months previously because she was in the mood for those two colors that Spring.
2. Mrs. Pool only saw one dress pattern or forgot there were two.
3. Lizzie was mistaken about where she put those dress patterns.
4. Emma decided not to given them to the police more than once or genuinely couldn't find them.
5. Emma did find them later - if so, where did she find them, and why did the previous searches fail?

What does everyone think happened?

[camgarsky4]

Here is the entire entry for Mrs. Pool's statement to Jennings.

Source: Jennings Journals. Page 251-252.
Mrs. Edwin R. Pool (1835-1918)
Entry recorded by Andrew J. Jennings.

Poole Mrs.

Thursday. got here in morning – went down street in afternoon. about evening got home. about dark Emma & friend came in evening. – went to Whiting’s, Moynan’s, & Bliss & Nye

Saw dress in Whiting’s & at Bliss & Nye little cup & saucer for my daughter –

Friday, she did not go out filled dr.’s c [compound] for me. daughter was sick.

Sat morning after breakfast she went down street & when she came home, she brot home this dress pattern & bunch of sweet peas. Know it was Sat because she said bot them because ours are wilted & they will be pretty for Sunday. Sat afternoon we went to Fairhaven & took little boy with me – think when we came home, I got something at Market – She wasn’t out of my sight as walked – told me about getting Frank’s pills.

Sunday – She did not go out

Monday --- She did not go out. I went out and engaged horse to go to Westport next morning.

Tuesday, we went to Westport & spent the day – came back & carried her to the train & saw her go in depot – train on track & ready – It was between 5:30 & 5:45.

Had letter from her morning of murder – rec’d then – said in it, she was going to Marion -- She had not been here to visit before for about 2 yrs.

[camgarsky4]

Few random thoughts.

*I don't find the color or designs of the materials to be of consequence. Lizzie seemed obsessed about blue and the matching dress apparently had a bunch of paint on it. So, planning to replace it wouldn't be odd. No idea on the pink wrapper.

*I don't think we can definitively ascertain how many dress patterns Mrs. Pool saw. These are notes taken by Jennings while he talked to Nancy. So, my presumption is that Lizzie bought what she said she bought. Why mention two patterns if she only got one or got three.

*Since I don't think Lizzie planned to violently attack the elder Borden's until her final prussic acid attempt failed, I also don't think she was plotting a body cover a couple weeks prior. I really haven't spent much time trying to come up with an opinion of why it seemed so difficult to locate the dress patterns.

[Lorcan]

ok, let's try to figure that out. Here's my timeline interpretation. I wish he would have taken better notes:

Timespan: Thursday, July 21, 1892 through Tuesday July 26, 1892.

1. Lizzie arrives at the Pool's Thursday morning. Emma and her friend visit about dark. Sunset was 7:12 PM (there was no DST back then).

2. Mrs. Pool and Lizzie go shopping in the afternoon. They go to 3 stores: Whitings, Moynan's, and Bliss & Nye. Lizzie or Mrs. Poole bought a cup and saucer for Mrs. Pool's daughter - I assume Lizzie bought that as a gift.

3. Friday Lizzie doesn't go out, but she does mix and measure medicine for Mrs. Pool's daughter's use.

4. Saturday Lizzie goes shopping alone in the morning and returns with a dress pattern and sweet peas. This is the 90 minutes in question. In the afternoon they took a little boy to Fair Haven. Whether they met Emma in Fairhaven is not mentioned.

5. Sunday Lizzie did not go out.

6. Monday Lizzie did not go out.

7. Tuesday they spent the day in Westport and then Mrs. Pool drops Lizzie off at the train station and watched her enter the building.

So, I'll try to find out if Whitings, Moynan's, or Bliss & Nye sold dress patterns/material and where the police actually confirmed, if they confirmed, it was actually purchased.

[Lorcan]

*Since I don't think Lizzie planned to violently attack the elder Borden's until her final prussic acid attempt failed, I also don't think she was plotting a body cover a couple weeks prior. I really haven't spent much time trying to come up with an opinion of why it seemed so difficult to locate the dress patterns.

That is a persuasive argument - I don't think Lizzie would have been planning two methods unless the paint story is true. This goes very deep into speculation, but the prosecution specifically asked where Lizzie was standing relative to the paint and the poisonous compound that altered the shade of green.

So, here's a speculative thought:

Lizzie knows green is a poisonous color from the women who got sick from their green dresses.

Lizzie makes a trip out to the painter's house to discuss the particular shade of green.

Lizzie makes the painter alter the green to make it more drab which was done by adding the poisonous compound to the paint.

Now Lizzie knows exactly which container has the poisonous compound.

She attempts to poison Abby with some of the painting supplies but it doesn't work.

She considers how to kill Abby and the idea of the hatchet is in the back of her mind (perhaps when the pigeons are killed - assuming Andrew used a hatchet).

However, she decides to try to obtain a more effective poison, prussic acid.

After being turned down twice in New Bedford, plan B means the hatchet, but she is reluctant to give up.

She makes a final attempt to buy prussic acid Wednesday in Fall River and fails.

Plan B is implemented, the dress covering and hatchet.

If that admittedly farfetched speculation is false, then I lean toward the dress material not being related to the crimes.

[Lorcan]

Bliss and Nye
121 Union Street

E. B. Whiting and Company, also known as Whitings
191 Union Street

Moynan and Company, or Moynan’s
185 and 187 Union Street as well as at 9 and 11 Purchase Street

Whitings and Moynan's both sold dress material. Bliss and Nye may have but they were more known for home furnishings.

[Inspector]

There’s no reason the sisters couldn’t hire a team of private detectives to continue the search for the “real killer.”
This wouldn’t put a dent in their fortunes, and I do agree that the matter is “telling.”

How quickly the money was offered to hire the dream team, and efforts to find the writer of the note, and after the acquittal, not one bit of concern, nor fear of the “real killer.”

There’s no defense for Lizzie apologists in the matter of the sisters silence, and numbness to the idea of finding the assassin, at least I can’t think of a good one.

[Lorcan]

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/hatcheto ... m-hanscom/

Here is an article about the Pinkerton private detective that was hired before the trial.

[camgarsky4]

Thx for posting. Hadn't seen that article by Harry previously.

[camgarsky4]

I was just percolating about how I would kick off an investigation if I was hired by the sisters. It really isn't such a mystery of the approach.

Assuming the detectives were starting from scratch.... immediately after the acquittal, have Charles Cook compile an exhaustive listing of all current commercial and residential tenants; former tenants going back 1-2 years; and all business associates involved in the A.J. Borden building project; working with the sisters, identify all parties with any personal dealings with the family, including Swansea farm employees; and, of course, a deep dive on estranged extended family, like Harrington, Fish, and the Whiteheads. While the number of names would be substantial, it wouldn't be paralyzing. Then go from there with the basics...establish motives, whereabouts, etc. etc.

Presumably much of this work would be duplicative to the police work, but I would do it to be thorough and leave no stone unturned.

This really should have been a no brainer. I also think that it would be impossible to have conducted such an investigation without word getting out. Not all these folks talked to would keep their mouths shut...frankly most of them probably wouldn't.

[Lorcan]

That sounds like a solid plan and your idea to give an instruction to be strategic in who you talk to first would help the investigation.

Here's an article about Cook for some background where his testimony under oath conflicts with what Medley says he said.

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/hatcheto ... ie-borden/

Where the Bread was Buttered: Charles C. Cook’s Loyalty to Lizzie Borden
by Tina Kate Rouse

First published in June/July, 2004, Volume 1, Issue 3, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies.

Charles C. Cook profited well from his association with Lizzie Borden. Cook had been a business associate of Andrew J. Borden, and manager of the Andrew J. Borden Block. Following the murders, he became the chief financial advisor to both Lizzie and Emma. Emma bequeathed Charles Cook $2,000 in her will, but Lizzie was the most generous. Following Lizzie’s death, Mr. Cook received cash, real estate, and a Lincoln sedan; a total reward that exceeded $20,000. Ironically, it may well have been Charles C. Cook who confirmed the Fall River Police Department’s suspicion of Lizzie Borden by providing a possible motive for the murders of Andrew and Abby Borden, leading to her arrest.

Officer William H. Medley conducted an interview with Charles Cook a few days following the murders, and contributed his findings to the Police Department’s witness statements.

August 7, 1892 – William H. Medley, Witness Statements:

Charles C. Cook made the following statement. “I am business manager for Mr. Andrew J. Borden, for the Borden Block. I did not see Mr. Borden Thursday. I have had charge of the Block almost since it was built. He used to come in once in a while, but not every day, nearly always alone. The only other person who ever came with him was his wife, excepting once when Lizzie came with him to sign a deed conveying some property she owned to her father. This property was owned jointly by the two sisters, and was situated on Ferry Street. Lizzie has been here three or four times, once came to ask me about the value of the property she was going to convey to her father. I told her, and she went away.”

(Question) Mr. Cook, have you any reason to believe Mr. Borden had, or had not, made a will?

(Answer) “I do not think Mr. Borden had made a will, unless it has been made recently. I will tell you how I know. He came to my office one day when I was writing, and waited until I finished, when I told him I was just writing a will. He said” ‘Charles, do you know that is something I have never done yet, but I must attend to it.’ ”

(Question) Mr. Cook, do you know of anything that would lead you to imagine that Lizzie and her father did not get along well together?

(Answer) “I do not like to answer that question on account of my position as custodian of property, as I do not know what my relations may be with the family, when this thing is settled.”

(Question) Would you be willing to answer that question in strict confidence to the City Marshal? (City Marshal Rufus B. Hilliard)

(Answer): “Yes sir, I would.”

Within a week (and a few days following Lizzie Borden’s arrest), an article appeared in The New York Herald on 13 Aug. 1892 (Kent/Flynn, 111):

Chief Hilliard said to me to-day that Mr. Borden was about to make a will. This statement was made to the Chief by a man whose name he declines to mention. He avers, however, that the old gentleman had been at work making an inventory of his property during the ten days preceding his murder. Mr. Borden had even departed from his usual reticence about his own private affairs and had told Chief Hilliard’s informant that he intended to devise his property “according to his own ideas.”

Additionally, this item appeared around the same time period—The Fall River Herald (Kent/Flynn, 131):

(Officer Seaver): What the government may consider its strongest point against the accused I am not prepared to say.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Notes. The question as to whether Mr. Borden made a will or not is receiving considerable attention. The Herald is in a position to state authoritatively that no such document is in existence. C.C. Cook, the real estate agent, states that any statement attributed to him as to how Mr. Borden intended to dispose of his property is false. He has never spoken of the matter, and what is more will not do so at the present.

What Cook had meant to be off the record quickly became cause for speculation, and a probable factor in the police department’s search for a motive. Charles Cook realized he had said too much to Hilliard, and the “strict confidence” had been breached. The time had come to deny. Emma and Lizzie had signed a probate document on August 5, 1892 stating they were the sole heirs of Andrew J. Borden. Cook had to make a choice. He could maintain an ethical loyalty to the late Andrew Borden by testifying all he knew, or instead, swear a new mercenary loyalty to the Borden sisters. He chose to go where his bread was buttered. Going against Lizzie Borden could mean losing his position at the Andrew J. Borden Block and any future Borden financial business. However, by aligning himself with the sisters, Cook would ensure himself a potentially invaluable position with Lizzie and Emma, the legal heirs of Andrew Borden. By the time of the preliminary hearing, Cook had pledged his allegiance to Lizzie Borden. Cook did not testify at the inquest, however, he was called to testify later that month at the preliminary hearing. After Cook’s testimony at the preliminary hearing, the police and the Prosecution knew they would receive no further co-operation from Cook.

Preliminary Hearing

By late August, Charles C. Cook had changed his official story. He vehemently denied ever saying what Medley wrote in the Witness Statements— Charles C. Cook (Preliminary Hearing, 206-208)

Q. (Mr. Knowlton.) Charles C. Cook is your name?

A. It is.

Q. What is your business Mr. Cook?

A. Insurance.

Q. Did you have any business relations with Andrew J. Borden?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What were they?

A. I had charge of his building on the corner of Anawan and South Main Street.

Q. That is a block he has erected within a year or two, a business block?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were you in the habit of seeing him often?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How often?

A. Well, three or four times a week.

Q. Do you remember the day of the murder?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you see him that day?

A. I did not.

Q. You did not see him on that day?

A. Not until afterwards.

Q. You saw him dead?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You did not see him alive?

A. No sir.

Q. Did you see him the day before the murder?

A. I saw him I think going down Main Street, on the other side of the street from the building, as I stood in the office.

Q. What day was that?

A. That would be Wednesday.

Q. What time of day?

A. I think in the forenoon, I do not remember the time.

Q. When was the last time you saw him to have any talk with him?

A. Tuesday I think; I know it was Tuesday.

Q. Tuesday afternoon or morning?

A. Tuesday forenoon.

Q. Where did you see him then?

A. In the office.

Q. Tuesday before the murder in the forenoon?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You had some talk with him that time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you have any talk with reference to a will?

A. No sir.

Q. Anything said by him about a will?

A. Not that day.

Q. When was it anything was said about a will, if ever?

A. There was nothing ever said only this —-

Q. My question is, when?

A. I do not remember the date, sometime before that.

Q. How long before?

A. Possibly three weeks, two or three weeks.

Q. What was it?

A. He simply told me that he has not one.

Q. Told you what?

A. That he had not any will.

Q. Did he say anything more?

A. No sir.

Q. Anything about making a will?

A. No sir.

Q. At any time?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you remember of his being in there at one time, when you were writing a will, or some instrument, and he asked you what you were writing?

A. I think that called the remark from me. There was a party talking with me about a will.

Q. Whether you remember that event?

A. I remember was there when he spoke about not having a will; there was a party in the office that I had been doing some work for.

Q. Is that the interview you spoke of a while ago?

A. Yes sir.

Q. At that time you were drawing a will?

A. No, I was not drawing the will at that time. The party came in to ask a question about it. That was after it had been drawn.

Q. Did he then say anything about making a will?

A. He did not.

Q. Have you ever said that he did?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you remember of talking with Mr. Medley the next day after the murder, or two days after the murder?

A. I remember he was in my office one night; I think it was a Saturday night.

Q. Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley about what he said to you?

A. I do not remember exactly what I told him. I know Mr. Medley asked me a good many questions; some I answered, and some I did not.

Q. Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley what he said to you?

A. I think possibly he asked me if there was anything said about a will.

Q. Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley what he said to you?

A. No, I do not remember exactly what I did tell Mr. Medley.

Q. Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley Mr. Borden said to you “what are you doing?” And you said you were making a will.

(Objected to.)

Q. Do you remember of saying to Mr. Medley that Mr. Borden told you that that was something that he had not done, and must do?

A. I did not say anything of that kind sir.

(No Cross Examination.)

In the Witness Statements, Cook had introduced information to Officer Medley freely and without any hesitation nor loss of memory. He said, “I do not think Mr. Borden had made a will, unless it has been made recently. I will tell you how I know . . .” He also told Officer Medley that Lizzie had in fact been in his office to discuss business, “three or four times.” Cook’s most telling statement is, “I do not like to answer that question on account of my position as custodian of property, as I do not know what my relations may be with the family, when this thing is settled.” Cook then agreed to speak off the record with Marshall Hilliard.

At the preliminary, Cook even denies he was writing a will when Andrew Borden came to his office. For no apparent reason, Cook changes his story to say he was not drawing up a will at that time at all, but attending to some questions a client was asking about a will that had previously been drawn. Being asked three times as to his recollection of that conversation with Mr. Borden which he had told to Medley, Cook denied it three times. The discrepancies between Cook’s witness statement and his official testimony seem reminiscent of Lizzie Borden’s conflicted Inquest statement.

The deed was done. Following the preliminary hearing, on September 2, 1892, Emma Borden received the title of administratrix for her father’s estate. No further evidence ever came to light to prove Andrew Borden had been planning to write a will. Neither the prosecution nor the defense had any further use for Cook’s denials. Charles C. Cook was not called to testify at the trial.

Andrew J. Borden may very well have been considering a will in 1892. He was about to turn seventy in September; a milestone he could not deny. He had signed as a witness for his friend Southard H. Miller’s will in January of that year. (Rebello 24) Lizzie and Emma had also sold the Ferry Street property back to him in July 1892, just prior to their respective summer trips away from home. There has been much speculation as to what was going on in the Borden household that summer with regard to Andrew’s property. The fact that Cook stated Lizzie came in alone to discuss the value of the Ferry Street property with him shows how Lizzie was determined to get a good price from Andrew. Lizzie was doing research on her own, and possibly establishing a business relationship with Cook. It makes sense that Andrew “intended to devise his property ‘according to his own ideas.’ ” Mention of the subject of wills by Cook or anyone else would have reminded Andrew that he needed to take care of the matter.

Unfortunately, whatever exchange passed between Charles Cook and Marshall Rufus Hilliard remained off the record, except in speculation.

Perhaps the final test of Cook’s loyalties occurred following the death of Lizzie Borden. Lizzie’s principal legatees, Helen Leighton and Grace Howe, found they had to contest Charles Cook’s claims against Lizzie’s estate on at least two occasions. The first was the matter of the Henry Property, a house and land that were purchased with Lizzie’s money but placed in Cook’s name as a trustee to avoid publicity. Cook argued Lizzie meant him to have the property when she died. The second occurred when Cook sold Lizzie’s half interest in the Andrew J. Borden building; he received a commission $6,500 and proceeded to charge the estate an exorbitant $10,000 executor’s fee. Leighton and Howe won over Cook in the case of the Henry Property, both in Probate Court, and again in his appeal to the Supreme Court. Probate Court granted Cook an executor’s fee of $5,000 in the matter of the Andrew J. Borden Building. By arguing with Lizzie Borden’s principal heirs, Charles C. Cook remained loyal only to himself.

At the time of his death, Charles C. Cook was a widower with no children. Cook had profited well from the choice he made in August of 1892. He left a large portion of his own estate to The Second Baptist Church of Fall River. As insurance had been his primary vocation, perhaps a stairway to Heaven was his final investment.

Works Cited

Kent, David. Lizzie Borden Sourcebook. Boston: Brandon Publishing, 1992.

Preliminary Hearing in the Borden Case before Judge Blaisdell, August 25 through September 1, 1892. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society. Rpt. Orlando: PearTree Press, 2004.

Rebello, Leonard. Lizzie Borden: Past and Present. Al-Zach Press, 1999.

The Witness Statements. Orlando: PearTree Press, 2004.

[Inspector]

Could it be that Jennings just wanted to check up on Morse a bit closer, and that was the whole gist?
Maybe he actually suspected Morse, if he truly thought Lizzie innocent, because the thought of a mad man running loose had to cross Jennings’s mind.

[Lorcan]

This is unconfirmed and I don't know the source - I think maybe a newspaper - but there is an idea that Jennings (or Lizzie) had Morse's past and present looked into and that Hanscom continued to investigate until Pinkerton himself called him off due to friction with the police being annoyed that he was interfering with their investigation.

Did you see the Lizzie Borden Chronicles (the TV series after the movie with Christina Ricci as Lizzie)? It's way over the top with modern music and Lizzie as a serial killer, but interestingly that series has Emma hiring Hanscom to prove Lizzie innocent and (spoiler alert) things do not go as Emma planned for his investigation.

What I find fascinating is the possibility that Hanscom was the one who Alice told about the dress and I wonder if that TV show was not too far off the mark. If Hanscom came back to Jennings and said my best and only suspect is Lizzie, that would explain his short tenure working for Jennings.

Getting back to Camgarsky's original post, Lizzie's team did hire a private investigator, Lizzie's and Emma's friend told him something potentially very damaging against Lizzie, and his term of hire was ended shortly thereafter. If Lizzie was guilty and Emma lied under oath, that would be a good reason not to hire another PI to look into things. If she was innocent and Emma told the truth, then I can't think of a valid reason why they wouldn't want to hire an investigator to continue to search for who killed Andrew and Abby and also start a full-on push to clear Lizzie's name and get her and Lizzie back into society so they wouldn't be shunned at church and deal with the open harassment by children (throwing things at the house, ringing the bell and running, singing jumprope songs) and the ostracization from the adults.

[camgarsky4]

Lorcan -- I think I'm just being slow, but I am not understanding how Lizzie hiring a detective team after her acquittal has anything to do with Emma's testimony and Emma being exposed to charges of perjury.

Hanscom did go to Hastings, Iowa to check into Morse's background. I presume Jennings was being thorough, but it does seem a bit targeted and would love to know if there was any drama inside that house once Morse learned of the situation.

On a side note, I can't imagine Robinson actually thought Lizzie was innocent.

[Lorcan]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks Emma was legally exposed. My thinking is if a detective is stirring the pot and the police or press decided to do what they did to OJ and keep pushing - the DA could have been pressured to put the question of her committing perjury to a grand jury and I think if so, she would have had a good chance of being convicted. I think Emma and Lizzie just wanted to let it die down and have people move on, which probably would have worked with our current news cycles and attention spans (as a society), but that Irish newspaper kept doing anniversary articles and The Hill crowd never did fully accept Lizzie.

Here are some photos of Hanscom...

[Inspector]

He looks like an intelligent guy, (not judging,) but he probably figured things out pretty quick.

Would be fascinating to find his notes to see how he viewed the case.

[Lorcan]

I submitted a request to Pinkerton's to see if they can confirm or deny that Orinton Hanscomb's records are in their collection in the Library of Congress or if they are otherwise available to historical researchers. From what I've read people have tried and failed to find them in the Pinkerton collection in the Library of Congress, but maybe we'll get lucky if they have their own library.

[Inspector]

Nice work! That would be quite a find.